As you know I study Vunaks material. One of your last posts, you still that you still use and teach the RAT system, but you've modified it. I assume that you've added more wrestling stuff like the clinch. Could you go further and explain more how you teach it and make it work?

If anyone has experience with RAT please feel free to posts, my experience is only limited to DVD's. And private practice with a few close friends of mines.

LOL...You sound excited. Personally I cant wait to read what your going to post. I used to buy MA magazines for this type of insight, now I get it straight from the source. I look forward to reading everything you post, and I have tons of questions. I hope you don't mind.

Once again I extend an invitation to everyone who has experience with RAT/JKD/concepts/style w/e... please join in and have fun.

P.S. while true that Paul Erickson was one of the first JKD men to add bjj to his system, what has he contributed for actual functional self defense? So far all i can find on him is techniques for MMA matches. Not for self defense or street fighting.

TEK, you understand the principles behind the RAT concept. Three core modes; interception, pressure and termination (hate using that word...I prefer the term "resolution").

So what's happening is that Voo was using eye jabs and destructions as his intercept..more or less, right? Then the straight blast as his pressure tactic. After that it was the double neck tie as his delivery system for knees, elbows and the headbutt.

Well, conceptually, none of that has changed really. What's been modified as some of the tactics for accomplishing each end.

Lets start with the intercepts. I don't like the long-range eye jab that Vunak LOVES. I do however like the elbow destruction and use it quite regularly to great effect in the gym. We've all felt it and it hurts, even through 16oz boxing gloves. The problem with teaching that to folks is, those are just "moves". That's a whole other issue beyond what we're trying to discuss presently.

I don't like the eye jab because there is nothing on it. Honestly, I would rather pop someone with a stiff jab than to "flick" an eye jab out. The jab has more on it. Taking a slight step forward into it can disrupt someone's timing, rhythm and footwork, etc. It's just more substantial. Ever walk right through someone's weak jab? People will. If a person doesn't have a jab worthy of respect, a person will walk straight through it. Flicking an eye jab out is weaker than the weakest jab if it doesn't land on the eyeball (which is a small target for a small weapon - in other words, it's hard to hit, particularly if your opponent is hitting you and otherwise has his guard/hands up as well). Thus I've thrown the eye jab out. Besides, eye jabs are easily thrown if you've been working your boxing jab any length of time. I would just rather have a credible, legitimate and verifiable technique (in terms of having seen it land and having seen the results in training). Thus, the jab is an even BETTER intercept as it accomplishes the same things in a better manner.

The "spike" (elbow destruction) is something that I've seen to work. With good timing and out of a boxing delivery system, that is something that I consider "high percentage" (which is the only thing I keep, everything else is thrown out).

So, from an interception point of view, having a decent boxing game is TEN times better than practicing eye jabs and destructions by themselves. If I had to put my money on someone in a fight, I would always put it on a boxer vs. some guy that has been practicing eye jabs. Just me.

The straight blast is "ok". I would personally rather use the modified "boxing blast", but I'm not going to completely throw out the straight blast altogether. The problem with that is again, that there is nothing on it, unless you can run into it full-bore. If you're using it to obtain the clinch, I think it's ok. My only opinion here is that the boxing blast is safer. You have to have more timing when using that because it's slower. But timing is an important attribute anyway and it's worth developing. Thats another reason why training delivery systems is important rather than just learning moves.

In terms of pressure (which the blast is designed to do), one can also use good boxing combinations to do the same thing. Pressure doesn't obviously have to always be "forward". Pressure can come by a disparity of skill and force. In other words, throw good tight combos in the face of someone who can't box and you'll see them fold up like a chair. Thats another form of pressure that comes from having functional delivery systems.

The "termination" stage is simply either chooing to disengage (pretty easily if you're outclassing someone, difficult if you're not) or choosing to "beat on them like they stole something" (to borrow a phrase). Whether that happens in the free movement range or happens in the clinch doesn't matter. But if we're talking about the clinch, I personally want to control at least one arm and the neck, as opposed to just the neck alone. I prefer to have an all-around clinch game rather than just the double neck tie. More options = mo' better.

All in all, it's still fundamentally the same - put some hurt on your opponent more than he does to you in ways which are simultaneously offensive and defensive, as the RAT was intended to be.

In regard to Erik Paulson, he develops "delivery systems" as opposed to just teaching someone a collection of moves. There's a difference. However, an armbar in MMA is an armbar on the street, or anywhere else. A punch is a punch. A shoulder lock is a shoulder lock. You have to have an athletic model of training these attacks and that's all he does. His fighters are more than capable of defending themselves because of his approach. It's hard to argue with athleticism, conditioning, experience and skill.

Quote:The straight blast is "ok". I would personally rather use the modified "boxing blast", but I'm not going to completely throw out the straight blast altogether. The problem with that is again, that there is nothing on it, unless you can run into it full-bore. If you're using it to obtain the clinch, I think it's ok. My only opinion here is that the boxing blast is safer. You have to have more timing when using that because it's slower. But timing is an important attribute anyway and it's worth developing. Thats another reason why training delivery systems is important rather than just learning moves.

Whats the difference between a boxing blast and a straight blast John?

When I've seen the straight blast demonstrated it always looks like the person doing it is firing off the back leg, much like in Wing Chun chain punching...and they always look to me like they only ever go in straight lines. I've not played with any JKD people but the WC people I messed around with just seem to punch their way straight into my clinch with any extremely high center of gravity. When you talk about a boxing blast are you talking working behind a good stiff jab? I tend to launch my jabs off a slight lateral step and work on jarring them out of the feet. I find the lateral step with an angled jab lines you up perfectly for the follow up cross.

Whats the difference between a boxing blast and a straight blast John?

Simply put, a straight blast is vertical chain punching and the boxing blast is horizontal chain punching. The boxing blast is thrown like you would throw a jab/cross combo that becomes a series of crosses because of changing footwork that puts each hand thrown as the rear hand.

Quote:

When I've seen the straight blast demonstrated it always looks like the person doing it is firing off the back leg, much like in Wing Chun chain punching...and they always look to me like they only ever go in straight lines.

The wing chun blast IS often thrown off the back leg, which is bad enough. If you're going to do a vertical blast, it requires great speed forward and you're not easily going to get the needed speed by throwing off your back leg and shuffling forward. A 6 year old can move out of the way of that.

The JKD blast is performed by running forward with your weight practically forward. There is little power however on the actual punches when compared to the boxing blast.

Quote:I've not played with any JKD people but the WC people I messed around with just seem to punch their way straight into my clinch with any extremely high center of gravity.

The high center of gravity is common to both methods (JKD and WC). Or rather, the COG tends to be higher, lets put it that way.

The boxing blast actually uses a lower COG which both contributes to it being somewhat slower, though more powerful.

Quote:

When you talk about a boxing blast are you talking working behind a good stiff jab? I tend to launch my jabs off a slight lateral step and work on jarring them out of the feet. I find the lateral step with an angled jab lines you up perfectly for the follow up cross.

You've taken the words right out of my mouth. That little lateral step lines the cross up perfectly doesn't it?

Sure the blast is typically started off behind a solid jab, which you then follow behind with great pressure from alternating crosses.

You really have to play with it to get a feel for the footwork required. It's a little awkward at first and the initial set-up is important from a footwork perspective. If you take too big a lateral step, you won't have as much pressure moving forward.

The lateral step is good to help set up the rear hand as mentioned. But when I'm doing that, I'm typically just working my boxing and not moving forward a great deal. When I want to hit the boxing blast, I'll take more of a step forward with the jab and then immediately follow behind it with the blasts. This says NOTHING about the set-ups and timing involved....

Quote:The boxing blast is thrown like you would throw a jab/cross combo that becomes a series of crosses because of changing footwork that puts each hand thrown as the rear hand.

Sounds like you use the same footwork as me mate. Standing orthodox if I'm going laterally to left I step into the left foot and throw a traditional jab. If I'm moving laterally to the right I actually cut across using my right foot so my left "jab" actually becomes a left cross due to the lateral step into the right foot. If that makes sense.

I find the lateral step into the right foot and firing off the left hand brilliant for setting up a lovely right hand step through cross as well. If you step into right foot and throw the left hand in chucks your body weight into the right foot. This means stepping back into the left transfers the body weight into a short sharp monster of a right cross that was set up with the left handed shot.

I also find that a lot of people make the step too long or short, too wide or not quite wide enough. I try to get my guys to line the shoulder/hip/foot they are hitting with into the target. That usually gives them a basis from which to play with and stops them hitting off their line of power.

As well as its offensive capabilities that lateral step also takes you off line of your opponents attacking line meaning that they are going to have to work for the counter, be it a jab, kick or shoot.

I agree WC chain punches are easy to get up under or trade punches with. The modified boxing blast as mentioned is slower but does real damage quickly to an opponent use to taking strikes to the face and returning blows. Or just a good counter puncher. Both will lead to someone being taken down but the boxer blast the damage is done. Also bc of the lower COG and slower powerful strikes if he ducks you can stand him back up or hammer him down.